CENTENNIAL LECTURE 


- ON - 

THOMAS PAINE, 

DELIVERED AT THE 

FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH, 

OF BU FF ALO. 

ON SUNDAY EVENING, JULY 2d, 1876, 

AND REPEATED AT THE SAME PLACE 

ON SUNDAY EVENING JULY 9th, 

BY THE MINISTER 

MARTIN K. SCHERMERHO R’N , 

TOGETHER WITH HIS 

LETTERS IN REPLY TO BISHOP GONE. 


PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 
SECOND EDITION. 


BUFFALO: 

Baker, Jones & Co., Printers and Binders, 220 and 222 Washington Street 

1876. 





















CENTENNIAL LECTURE 


-ON- 

THOMAS PAINE 

DELIVERED AT THE 

FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH, 

OF BUFFALO, 

ON SUNDAY EVENING, JULY 2d, 1876, 

AND REPEATED AT THE SAMJ? PLACE 

ON SUNDAY EVENING, JULY 9th, 

■ ■ 

BY THE MINISTER 

' 

MARTIN K. SCHERMERHORN, 

TOGETHER WITH HIS 

LETTERS IN REPLY TO BISHOP GONE. 


PUBLISHED BY REQUEST 
SECOND EDITION. 


BUFFALO: 

Baker, Jones & Co., Printers and Binders, 220 and 222 Washington Street 

1876. 





*• r 

.. 1. * ’ 


• . • 
■» 


t 


% 


, 0! 


% 


/ 


t • ■ f 


I 


I 


% 

: t 


> f > 


( 


4U 

N 



« * 


f'. 




« 


/ I 

•‘‘A 


I 


< / i 


« 




r 


■‘I ' 

J 


* ' ' . ' A 1 




S» L 


• T.’ '•■ 


.’ » 










*/ 


' I 


,*/ 



xt 

( I 

4 


I 




LECTURE. 



Not in the spirit of sectarian controversy, nor as an indiscrimi¬ 
nate eulogist, but simply as a lover of historic justice and an 
advocate of Christian charity—do I propose to speak to you this 
evening of i\\Q patriotic, philanthropic, moral and religious character 
of Thomas Paine. 

A few years ago, had T presumed to speak at all eulogistically or 
even apologetically of Thomas Paine, I should doubtless (by way 
of excuse) have chosen as my motto, ‘‘ Give the Devil his due.^^ 
But then, like most of my class, I had never read a page of his 
writings, and knew nothing at all about him except the vague 
reproaches and denunciations which I everywhere heard from pop¬ 
ular rumor. 

But since that time having read, and re-read, and ke-read his 
writings, and having learned all about him that can be learned 
from authentic sources, I have (with great humiliation and peni¬ 
tence) hastened to correct my former ignorance and bigotry, by re¬ 
moving him from the category of ‘‘ Devils,” and placing him in 
that of Saints ;—human Saints, of course; and, remembering that 
even the sainthood of humanity has its weaknesses—generally 
great weaknesses—I am now led to adopt as the motto of my dis¬ 
course that trite but pertinent couplet 

“ Be to my faults a little blind; 

And to my virtues very kind.” 

In John’s Gospel, seventh chapter, and sixteenth verse, I find an 
appropriate text for my topic. “ And there was much murmuring 
among the people concerning him ; for some said, He is a good man ; 
others said nay, hut he deceiveth the people.^^ 


[ 



4 


As con(3erning Jesus, for more than a century after his death, so 
concerning Thomas Paine for more than a century there has been 
much murmuring among the people; some—indeed only a few, who 
have been generally known as heterodox in their Theology—have 
said, “ He was a good man ; who can convict him of any crime or 
great sin ?” Others—indeed, the whole of trinitarian Christendom, 
with here and there a grand exception —have said, He must have 
heenabadman. for he deceived the people by teaching them that God 
is one, instead of three; that Jesus is a man, instead of a God; 
that the Bible is a natural instead of a supernatural book, that all 
mankind instead of a portion of them are everlastingly the child¬ 
ren of God, and that educated reason and conscience are the guides 
of man, instead of priests and theologians. He must have been a 
bad man (though we cannot prove it) for he deceived the people 
with such doctrines as these.’’ I propose, this evening, as briefly as 
I can, to show that Thomas Paine, though not free from faults, 
was on the whole a good man, in the three-fold sense of being a 
great Patriot, a great Philanthropist, and a sincere believer in and 
worshipper of Almighty God. 

What I shall say will be necessarily imperfect on account of the 
short time which I have given myself in which to say it. I can 
only present a sketch, which you, by reading his published works, 
must at your leisure fill up for yourselves. Neither do I propose 
originality—indeed, many of my words will be not my own, but 
those of wiser, more judicious, and more impartial students of the 
life of Thomas Paine, than I profess or consider myself to be. 

Thomas Paine was born in Thetford, England, in 1737—nearly 
140 years ago. His father was a birth-right member of the Society 
of Friends—an honest, industrious, intelligent man. The Quaker 
blood which Thomas had in his veins, made him all his life long a 
Protestant of the Protestants, and though the Quakers, who at 
that time were all rigidly “ orthodox,” cast him out as a “ heretic,” 
and at his death even refused him burial in their grounds, yet he 
always esteemed them higher than any other Christian sect. 
“ Their religion, of all others, approaches nearest the true religion,” 
he wrote, “ in the moral and benign part thereof, but they have 
contracted themselves too much by leaving the works of God out 


5 


of their system,’^ and he adds facetiously, “ though 1 revere 
their philanthrophy, I cannot help smiling at their conceit, that if 
the taste of a Quaker could have been consulted at the creation 
what a silent and drab-colored creation it would have been ! Not a 
flower would have blossomed its gaities, nor a bird been permitted 
to sing.” 

Of his childhood and early manhood we know but little. “ My 
father being of the Quaker profession,” he writes, “it was my good 
fortune to have an exceeding good moral education, and a tolerable 
stock of useful learning.” He went to the grammar school, be¬ 
came acquainted with the Latin books used in the school, af¬ 
terwards studied science, wrote poetry, attended philosophical lec¬ 
tures, etc., etc., he tells us. One remeniscence of his childhood 
which he gives of himself throws much light upon his religious 
tendencies and endowments. “I well remember,” he writes, / 
“ when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by 
a relation of mine, who was a great devotee to the Church upon 
what is called redemption by the death of the Son of God. After 
the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as 1 was going 
down the garden steps (fori perfectly remember the spot) I revolted 
at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself 
that it was making God act like a passionate man that 
killed his son when he could not revenge himself in any other way, 
and, as I was sure a man would be hanged who did such a thing, I 
could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. 
This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had anything in 
it of childish levity ; it was to me a serious reflection, arising from 
the idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and 
also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it.” He adds, 

“I believe in the same manner at this moment; and I morever be¬ 
lieve that any system of religion, that has anything in it that 
shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.” ^ 

With this glance at the boyhood of Thomas Paine, we pass to 
his early manhood. 

At about the age of twenty-four, his wife having died, we And him 
in London as teacher in an academy, and a zealous student of As¬ 
tronomy. He possessed a great genius for science, and had he been 


6 


favored with opportunities of cultivating it, he doubtless would 
have become the leading scientist of his age. His scientific tastes 
first brought him into acquaintance with Benjamin Franklin, then 
in London, and this acquaintance with the great Philosopher and 
Sage of America soon ripened into an intimate and life-long friend¬ 
ship. The discussion of mathematical and mechanical problems 
was his delight, and he invented the first iron bridge, to which in¬ 
vention our railways especially are unspeakably indebted. He 
was also the first to suggest the practicability of steam naviga¬ 
tion. 

In 1774 Dr. Goldsmith became his friend, attracted to him by 
the universal notoriety of his first published pamphlet on “ How 
to make Excisemen more honest,” thousands of which were dis¬ 
tributed throughout England. 

At the age of thirty-seven he resolves to visit tfie New World. 
Leaving his little property behind, and without money or friends he 
arrives in America with simply a kind and eulogistic letter from 
Benjamin Franklin, introducing him to Mr. Boche, his son-in-law, 
who immediately secured a few pupils for him, and soon assisted 
him to employment as contributor to the Pennsylvania Magazine. 
His contributions to this magazine were so brilliant and popular 
that the subscription list began at once to rapidly increase. 

It was in this magazine that the idea of American Independence 
was first publicly broached, as also the idea of a future emancipa¬ 
tion of American slaves; and both came from the bold and pro¬ 
phetic pen of Thomas Paine. The following were his words—at^ 
that time as startling and unpopular as they were novel: I hesi¬ 

tate not to believe that the Almighty will finally separate America 
from Britain; and when this is accomplished, I hope our first 
gratitude may be shown by an act of Continental legislation, which 
shall put a stop to the importation of negroes, soften the hard fate 
of those already here, and in time procure their freedom.” 

Thus we see that Thomas Paine was the ‘^John the Baptist” 
both of George Washington and of Abraham Lincoln; he was, 
both to American Independence and to American Freedom what 
Christopher Columbus was to the American Continent— the first 
bold Discoverer. 


7 


Dr. Rush, an intimate friend of Dr. Franklin, and one of the 
signers of the Declaration, was so much pleased with these writings, 
that he sought at once his acquaintance. Other distinguished men 
did the same, until soon he became a general favorite, not only in 
Philadelphia, but also throughout the Provinces. Says one of his 
biographers, referring to him at this time, “ His mind is well in¬ 
formed, his manners simple and attractive, his conversation earnest 
and instructive, his bearing modest and retiring.” “There is 
Genius in his eyes,” said Gen. Charles Lee. “ That genius was soon 
to flash down his arm and touch his pen with fire, and kindle every¬ 
where the flame of independence.” 

In the early part of 1776—a hundred years ago—the voice of 
Thomas Paine rose first and loudest in advocacy of an immediate, 
full and final Declaration of Independence. The British were then 
besieging Boston, Montgomery was dead, Arnold was wounded,. 
Washington was discouraged and as yet had hardly dared to think 
favorably of what he a few months before had called the “Abhorred 
idea of Independence.” The people clamored that the revolution had 
already gone too far; no one openly advocated the Declaration of 
Independence and even in the Continental Congress a storm of in¬ 
dignation was aroused at the hint of it, and it was theYe declared 
that such a movement “ would be the ruin and loss of liberty for¬ 
ever.” 

In this state of things when the tide of patriotism was fast reced¬ 
ing, when many wanted to speak but nobody dared to, Thomas 
Paine, in the good providence of God, came to the front as the 
Aaron if not the Moses of American liberty. He published hi& 
“ Common Sense,” addressed to the American people, which rang 
out the battle cry oi forward, no halting until America is alsolutelg 
and forever free. Though many of the timid were at first fright¬ 
ened, “ there never was a publication more timely, for it told the 
people what they dimly felt and knew.” 

Immediately every press in America reprinted the pamphlet and 
circulated it everywhere. “ It was read by every officer and soldier 
in the army who could read. Those who could not listened with 
lips agape, and eyes brimful of wonder or of tears; the impression 
was tremendous. The letters of the times are full of it. Washing- 


8 


ton wrote—' A few more such flaming arguments added to the 
sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning contained in the pam¬ 
phlet Common Sense will not leave many at a loss to decide on the 
propriety of separation/ The Pennsylvania Journal said: ^The 
author ought to have a statue of gold/ ’’ 

The three-fold object of this pamphlet, was to show the evils of a 
hereditary monarchy; to inspire the Americans with self-confidence, 
and to show that an immediate Declaration of Independence was 
absolutely necessary to American self-respect and prosperity. “ The 
period of debate is closed” it declared, “ arms must decide the con¬ 
test. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. 
The sun never shone on a nobler cause. ’Tis not the affair of a 
city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent, of at 
least one-eighth part of the habitable globe. ’Tis not the concern 
of a day, a year, or an age. Posterity are virtually involved in it, 
even to the end of time. Europe, and not England, is the parent 
country of America. The new world hath been the asylum for the 
persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of 
Europe. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed 
England and America, is a strong and natural proof that the au¬ 
thority of the one over the other was never the design of Heaven. 
There is something absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetu¬ 
ally governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the 
satellite larger than the primary planet. They belong to different 
systems—England to Europe, America to herself. Everything 
short of independence is leaving the sword to our children. The 
blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries ‘ It is time to 
part.’ Ye that love mankind, that dare not only oppose tyranny 
but the tyrant, stand forth ! Freedom hath been hunted round the 
globe. Europe regards her as a stranger, and England hath gijen 
her warning to depart. 0, receive the fugitive and prepare an 
asylum for mankind.” 

With such sentences as these, (says a biographer), sentences that 
still make the pulse beat faster as we read them, did Thomas Paine 
arouse at once the patriotism and the conscience of the people. A 
more timely word was never spoken; even the bitterest enemies of 
the author of The Age of Reason have been forced to acknowledge 


9 


the almost miraculous influence and worth of the pamphlet entitled 
Common Sense. Says one author : “ It is certainly not too much 
to claim for it, that it hastened the Declaration of Independence 
six or eight weeks. But if the declaration had been delayed eight 
weeks, it might have been delayed a century. It is safe to say that 
if the declaration had not been adopted before the battle of Long 
Island (six weeks after the 4th of July) it would not have been 
adopted after that terrible calamity. ” Here we see not only the fervid 
patriotism of Thomas Paine, his humanity, his love of liberty, his 
sympathy with the oppressed, but also his wise, almost prophetic in¬ 
sight of circumstances and events. Abraham Lincoln, resolving 
upon the Emancipation Proclamation and dashing off* the fetters of 
American slavery with one blow, is the only American patriot and 
philanthropist who can be presented as the equal in zeal and wisdom 
of Thomas Paine. 

No wonder that the author of Common Sense^ became at once 

the idol of all soldiers, oflicers and statesmen who were in favor 
of American freedom.” Happy the table or the tent which in 
those days could boast his company.” 

But Thomas Paine did not stop with this flrst and loudest battle 
cry of freedom. During the prosecution of the war he issued, from 
time to time, sixteen numbers of a pamphlet called The Crisis^ 
every one of which was a telling blow in favor of the cause of 
Liberty; every one of which nerved the arms of soldiers in the con¬ 
flict, and both pointed and prepared the way to final victory. We 
may truly say that in the cause of American freedom, Thomas 
Paine’s pen was more powerful than Washington’s sword, and 
wrought more effectively than the muskets and weapons of the 
bravest brigade of the war of the Eevolution! 

But while working for America, Paine had forgotten himself. 
When he was elected clerk of the Pennsylvania Assembly, in re¬ 
sponse to a letter from Washington, telling of the distress of the 
soldiers for want of money, he immediately sent his whole year’s 
salary, $500, as a subscription, and then went to work and raised 
among his friends, £500,000 besides. Thus he relieved the army 
for a time; and afterwards, when more money was wanted, he went 
to France, secured there six million livres as a gift and ten million 



10 


as a loan, by which Washington was enabled to prosecute the war, 
and soon to virtually end it by the capture of Cornwallis at York- 
town. Besides this Paine refused to make money from his numer¬ 
ous publications. ‘‘ I could never reconcile it to my principles,’^ 
he said, “ to make money either by my politics or my religion. 
Where the happiness of man is at stake, I love to work for noth¬ 
ing.” And, moved by such a pure, unselfish, humane spirit, he 
even refused remuneration from the Government until years 
later, was literally forced upon him an appropriation of 
$3,000 voted by Congress at the request of Washington, $2,500 
voted by Pennsylvania, a farm in New Eochelle voted by New 
York, and a residence at Bordertown voted by New Jersey. 

Thomas Paine had now arrived at the age of about forty-five 
years. We find a pleasant picture of his life at this time painted 
in the following words : “A few quiet, happy years followed the 
Bevolution; now we find him at the urgent request of Washington, 
spending a few weeks at Eocky Hill, anon at Philadelphia, upon 
the best terms with Franklin, Eush and Eittenhouse, a member 
of the Philosophical Society, and Master of Arts of the University 
of Pennsylvania, a man frequently interviewed, one of the lions 
that all foreigners must see, but himself quiet and unobtrusive, 
pleasant in lace, and neat in dress and easy in his manners.” At 
length he has conceived the idea of building an iron bridge, and 
goes to France to lay his model before the Academy of Science. In 
Paris his reception is almost an ovation ; he becomes an intimate 
friend of Lafayette, who gives the keys of the recently demolished 
Bastile into his hands, to be carried as a keepsake home to Wash¬ 
ington. He is everywhere honored and received by philosophers, 
sages and statesmen. 

At length, in 1791, persuaded by his friends, Thomas 
Paine, in answer to Burke’s celebrated Reflections, wrote 
his Rights of Man, dedicated to his friend George Washington. 
This publication, in two parts, was meant as a severe rebuke of 
tyrants and aristocrats in Europe ; thousands ot copies of it 
were scattered throughout Great Britain, Ireland and Germany, 
“on errands of revolution and reform.” It was translated in 
different languages, and by Liberals was everywhere hailed with 


11 


the wildest enthusiasm. In England, while the government party 
burned his effigy in every town, the Liberals sang to the music of 
“ God Save the King: 

“ God save great Thomas Paine, 

His Rights of Man proclaim, 

From pole to pole.” 

In France he rode upon the topmost crest of popularity, “Mem¬ 
ber from Calais, three other departments disputing with Calais for 
the honor of electing him, journeying to Paris amid salvos of can¬ 
non, crowned with a civic wreath, wearing the national cockade, 
receiving the fraternal kiss of the municipality, listening to the 
frantic cries of vive Thomas Pained “Truly” adds this bio¬ 
grapher, if Paine had been engulfed in the Atlantic before he 
proclaimed his theological “heresies” in The Age of Reason, “then 
not another name would have stood higher on the roll of national 
helpers and deliverers than his, not Lafayette’s nor Steuben’s, nor 
De Klab’s, nor Green’s, nor Adams’, nor Washington’s. He would 
have had more honor than he actually deserved ; now, he has so 
much less. And why? Because he wrote The Age of ReasonP 

And now from the outline of his history and character which I 
have hastily drawn, no one can any longer deny or doubt 
that Thomas Paine is worthy to be called what Bishop Coxe 
was horrified at hearing him called, “an apostle of civilization and 
humanity.” Ko greater patriot or philanthropist than was he has 
America produced, and I must add, no truer moralist or humani¬ 
tarian both in theory and in practice. With reference to his moral 
character, his theological enemies have imagined everything, in¬ 
timated everything, insinuated everything but proved nothing, 
except that (like all the men of his day, ministers included) he 
drank wine, took snufif, and in his old age became childish, trouble¬ 
some and untidy in his habits. With respect to the moral, or 
rather immoral character of “Tom Paine,” as the vulgar have 
delighted in nick-naming him, the number of lies which have 
been forged and circulated is something astounding; and even now, 
nine persons out of ten are so ignorant of his real character, and 
so blinded with prejudice and falsehood, with rumor and slander, 
that his name is to them almost a synonym for the name of Satan. 


12 


Tom Paine, Theodore Parker and the Devil is a sort of satanic 
trinity in the conceptions of almost all who have been reared be¬ 
neath the influences of what is called “Evangelicafl^ Christianity. 
And all this hideous misconception and hateful slander has grown 
out of that same spirit of unjust judgment, which led the Jews 
to call Jesus a devil because he cast out devils, and to say “He can¬ 
not be a good man because he teaches heresy to the people.” 

So now, having defended, as I think incontrovertibly though 
briefly the patriotic, philanthropic and moral character of Thomas 
Paine, I add a few words in defense of his religious character. Had 
be not written The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine’s monument 
would have stood to-day by the side of Jefferson’s, Franklin’s and 
Adams’, and all men would have delighted to do him at least equal 
honor with these other “ Fathers of our Country.” He was in 
reality no greater “heretic” than were they; but they wrote no 
books, made no loud confessions, hurled no theological thunder¬ 
bolts; hence their “ heresies ” were long ago forgiven. But poor 
Paine, who dared speak out his religious convictions loud and clear 
and decisive, without regard to policy or praise, he on this account 
has never had forgiveness. After all, we may ask these columna- 
tors of America’s great patriot and philanthropist, as Pilate asked 
the Jews concerning Jesus, “ Why, what evil hath he done ? ” 
Away with him,” is the reply, “for he wrote The Age of Rea¬ 
son ! ” But what is there so unforgivable in The Age of Reason 9 
Let us see. 

Opening it, we find upon its title page this dedication : “ To my 
fellow citizens of the United States* of America: I put the follow¬ 
ing work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon 
religion. You will do me the justice to remember that I have 
always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion 
however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies 
others that right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion. 
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. 

I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.” This is 
Thomas Paine’s assertion everywhere strenuously made of the » 
inalienable rights of individual opinion. It corresponds exactly 
with the words of Jesus, “ Why even of yourselves judge ye not 


13 


what is right ” ; and also with the words of Paul, “ Lest every man 
he fully persuaded in his own mind.” 

Turning over, we find on the first page the author’s reason for 
writing this volume. “ A work of this kind is exceedingly neces¬ 
sary,” he says, “ lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false 
systems of government and of false theology, we lose sight of 
morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.” These 
words, remember, he wrote in Paris in the midst of the French 
Eevolution, when, not only lawless skepticism, but even avowed 
atheism, was everywhere beginning to prevail, not only in France, 
but also among the more noble and intelligent people of Germany, 
England and America ; and, as he elsewhere says, it was on pur- 
pone to correct this tendency to universal sTcepticism that he wrote. 
He attacked what he believed to be superstition and error for the 
one purpose of saving the intelligence of the age from the reac¬ 
tion of atheism; for all thinking people everywhere were beginning 
to say, ‘‘ Better no God at all than such a God as priests and theo¬ 
logians are telling us about; a jealous, revengeful, blood-thirsty 
tyrant on the throne of heaven is worse even than are such tyrants 
on the thrones of earth. Down with Him, and leave His place 
vacant if need be.” In answer to this atheistic cry; Thomas Paine 
wrote his Age of Reason^ standing forth like another Paul in the 
midst of the Mars Hill of the 18th century, and eloquently plead¬ 
ing, not, indeed, for the God of ignorance, priestcraft and supersti¬ 
tion, but for the God of intelligence, who made the earth, the 
heavens, and all things; who is the God and Father of all nations; 
who is not far from his children, everyone of whom live and move 
and have their being in Him. 

In conformity with this avowed object of the book, on the next 
page stands the author’s creed, the first clause of which is, “ I be¬ 
lieve in one God, and no more.” The Trinitarian world has been 
taught to believe that Thomas Paine was an atheist, and I am told 
that a leading D. D. of this city, who evidently (like nearly all of 
his class) had never read a page of his writings, asserted that on his 
death-bed Thomas Paine, for the first time,confessed that there is 
a God.” So it is that this most pronounced of Theisis, who wrote 
a book against atheism, and the first clause of whose lile-long creed 


14 


was, I believe in one God, and no more,” has been and yet is ma¬ 
ligned as an atheist. And not only as an atheist has Thomas Paine 
been maligned, but also as a disbeliever in immortality. How utterly 
unfounded is this charge may be seen from the second clause of 
his creed, “I hope for happiness after this life”; which in another 
place he enlarges upon in the following beautiful and reverential 
words: “ This hope is comfortable to me, and I presume not to go 
beyond the comfortable idea of hope, with respect to a future state. 
I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dis¬ 
pose of me after this life consistently with His justice and goodness. 
I leave these things in the hands of Him as my creator and friend.” 
‘‘My own opinion is,” he continues, announcing his belief not only 
in the future life, but also in the rewards and punishments of the 
future life, “ my own opinion is, that those whose lives have been 
spent in doing good and endeavoring to make their fellow mortals 
happy (for this is the only way in which we can serve God) will be 
hai^fpy hereafter; and that the very wicked will meet with some 
punishment. This is my opinion. It is consistent with my ideas 
of God’s justice, and with the reason that God has given me.” 
Here, then, in this terrible booh of heresies,” The Age of Reason, 
we have stated and elaborated, in the most positive, beautiful and 
reverential language, the four fundamental beliefs, God, Immortal¬ 
ity, Future Rewards and Punishments, and the Right of every man 
to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. 
Such a book, built upon such principles. Is it not impious as 
well as slanderous to call it “atheistic,” “infidel,” “heretical,” 
“ demoralizing ” ? 

The practical part of the author’s creed and teachings are equally 
unassailable. “I believe in the equality of man; and I believe 
that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and 
endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.” This senti¬ 
ment, which is almost verbally the same as that which St. James, 
in the New Testament, pronounces, “Pure religion and undefiled 
before God and man” is the practical sentiment of the whole book, 
indeed, of all the writings of Thomas Paine, as it was also the 
practical sentiment of all the works and deeds of his noble life. 

But what does The Age of Reason say of Jesus Christ ? we are 


15 


asked. The common opinion is that it mocks, defames and derides 
him. I answer, The Age of Reason mocks, defames and derides 
no one, much less Jesus Christ. Let it answer for itself, in a sen¬ 
timent which is nowhere contradicted or even qualified in any 
of Paine’s writings. “Nothing that I have said can apply even 
with the most distant disrespect to the real character of Jesus 
Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality 
that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; 
and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Con¬ 
fucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers many years before, 
and by many good men in all ages, it has never been exceeded by 
any.” 

But what’ of Revelation, Miracles, Providence? we are again 
asked. Does not The Age of Reason deny and ridicule these ? It 
denies and ridicules those superstitious conceptions, which shut up 
Revelation in one book called the Bible, which confines Miracles to 
one semi-barbaric epoch called the Apostolic age, and which limits 
Providence to the freakish professions and prayers of a few who 
consider themselves the favorites of Heaven. These and such 
like superstitious conceptions it denies and ridicules, but not 
Revelation, Miracles, Providence. Here again let it speak for 
itself. “But some perhaps will say. Are we to have no Word of 
God, no revelation ? I answer yes, there is a Word of God, there 
is a revelation. The word of God is the creation we behold, and it 
is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeiter alter, 
that God speaketh universally to man. Here God publishes him¬ 
self from one end of the earth to the other. He preaches to all 
nations and to all worlds, and this Word of God reveals to man all 
that is necessary for man to know of God. Do we want to con¬ 
template his power? We see it in the immensity of the creation. 
Do we want to contemplate his wisdom ? We see it in the un¬ 
changeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is gov¬ 
erned. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it 
in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to 
contemplate his mercy ? We see it in his not withholding that 
abundance even from the unthankful.” With reference to Miracles 
he says : “ There is a sense in which everything is a miracle, and 


16 


in which no one thing is a greater miracle than another. The 
elephant, though larger, is* no greater a miracle than a mite, nor a 
mountain than a stone. To an Almighty power it is no more dif¬ 
ficult to make a million of worlds than to make one ; in one sense 
everything, therefore, is a miracle.” 

With reference to Providence: “ Do not objects of gratitude and 
admiration present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we 
not see a fair creation prepared to receive ns the instant w^e are 
born, a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing ? Is 
it w^e that light the sun, that pour down the rain, that fill the 
earth with abundance ? Whether we sleep or wake the vast 
machinery of the universe still goes on. Are all these things and 
the blessings they indicate, nothing to us ?” And again, passing 
from a general to a special Providence, and speaking of his sur¬ 
vival through the thousand dangers of the French Pevolution: ‘T 
owe this, not to the prayers of the priests nor the piety of hypo¬ 
crites, but to the constant protections of Providence.” 

What need we more ? With such a positive avowal and splendid 
advocacy of all these fundamental principles of Religion, the Being 
of God, the Immortality of the Soul, the Rewards of Virtue and 
the Punishment of Sin, the Rights of Conscience, the Equality and 
Brotherhood of Man, the Religion of Justice, Mercy and Philan- 
throphy, the Excellence of Jesus and his Teachings, the Reality of 
Divine Revelations, Miracles and Providence, always and everywhere 

displayed,- What need we more to prove that this book. The 

Age of Reason, so long and so universally condemned, is not a bad 
but a good book; and that its author, Thomas Paine, so long and 
universally anathematized, was not a bad but a good man! !Not 
that we claim perfection either for the book or the man. In the 
man, as both his life and his writings show, there are such defects 
as egotism, intolerance, bitterness of feeling and speech toward his 
enemies; in the book there are such faults as the use of harsh, 
sometimes even of coarse epithets, a lack of charitable forbearance 
toward those who, either ignorantly or willfully, have been the 
teachers or promoters of error, and especially too little, far too little, 
recognition of the truth and excellence which abounds in the midst 
of the superstitions and misconceptions of the Bible and of Biblical 


17 


Theology. These are indeed grave faults, but they are the faults 
of all greatest men, and of all best books. The Age of Reason^ con¬ 
sidering the rough and revolutionary times in which it was written, 
is on the whole as free from these faults as could be reasonably ex¬ 
pected; and its author, considering the oppositions, persecutions 
and martyrdoms he endured, was, after all, a marvel of patience and 
forbearance. 

But already we have lingered too long. Let us hasten to a closing 
glance of this great man’s life. In 1802, being released from an 
eleven month’s confinement in a Parisian prison, where he wrote 
the second part of his Age of Reason^ and from which, on account of 
his liberal political sentiments the tyrant Robespierre hardly per¬ 
mitted him to escape with his life, chased and hunted across the 
Atlantic by emissaries of the blood-thirsty monarchists, he returned 
after an absence of fourteen years to his beloved America, con¬ 
cerning which he used frequently to say: “ I had rather see my 
horse Button eating the grass of Bordentown or Morisania than see 
all the pomp and show of Europe.” He was then about sixty-five 
years of age. He retired to his farm in Hew Rochelle, and soon 
after wrote concerning himself to his friend Samuel Adams: “ I 
have yet, I believe, some years in store, for I have a good state of 
health and a happy mind. I take care of both, by nourishing the 
first with temperance and the latter with abundance.” Thus for 
the seven closing years of his life, in quietu’de and retirement, lived 
Thomas Paine. His old age began indeed to tell upon his man¬ 
ners, speech and writings, making them childish and weak, some¬ 
times even harsh and bitter; but still and to the end “ he had 
always a smile for little children, gentle words and kind deeds for 
the poor and unfortunate.” His last will and testament, made a 
little before his death, began as follows: “I, Thomas Paine, repos¬ 
ing confidence in my Creator God, and in no other being, for 1 
know no other, nor believe in any other,” &c. After disposing of 
his property in various ways, taking care to request that certain 
children whom he remembered, “ be well brought up and instructed 
in their duty to God and the practice of morality,” he closed with 
these beautiful words of peace and faith: ‘‘ I herewith take my final 
leave of my friends and the world. I have lived an honest and 


18 


useful life to mankind; my time lias been spent in doing good, 
and I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my 
Creator God/^ 

So, with the satisfaction and hope of a ‘‘ righteous man’s death ” 
passed away from earth, at the ripe old age of more than three-score 
and ten years, one of America’s greatest patriots and philanthro¬ 
pists, and, I will add, one of America’s most honest, if not most 
profound theologians. For more than three-score and ten years 
since his death his political and especially his theological enemies 
have slandered and reviled him; but now at length the injustice 
and the wickedness of their hatred is beginning to be seen, and 
though many are yet “wagging their heads ” over his grave, the best 
intelligence and the broadest culture of the age, are now hastening 
the fulfillment of Mr. Monroe’s noble prophesy made in the year 
1794—“The crime of ingratitude I trust will never stain our na¬ 
tional character. You (Thomas Paine) are considered by all your 
countrymen as one who has not only rendered important services 
to them, but also as one, who, on a more extensive scale, has been 
the friend of human rights, and a distinguished and able advocate in 
favor of public liberty. To the worth and loelfare of Thomas Fame 
the American people can never le indifferent^ 

My hearers, the characters and deeds of all greatest and best men 
live not with them, but after them. The perspective of a century is 
not enough. When our children’s children shall celebrate America’s 
second centennial, a hundred years from now, they will write in 
largest letters, upon their national banner, this sentence, which all 
intelligent American citizens will then enthusiastically recognize 
and applaud: Thomas Paine—The Patriot, Philanthropist and 
Theologian of Tvoo Hundred years ago. 


THOMAS PAINE. 


FIRST LETTER IN REPLY TO BISHOP COXE. 

Editor Buffalo Commercial Advertiser: 

I notice in your issue of Saturday evening a report of a speech by 
Bishop Coxe, made at the Heathcote School, in which, referring to 
my recent publication of “Authors, Authorities and Representa¬ 
tives of American Unitarianism,” he takes occasion to express hor¬ 
ror at the inclusion of the name of Thomas Paine, and calls upon 
“ the city to ring with denunciation of those who, styling them¬ 
selves Christians, enshrine Tom Paine as an apostle of humanity 
and civilization.” 

I can hardly believe that this was the exact language of the good 
Bishop—for, first, I have always supposed him a gentleman, and no 
gentleman, in a public speech, would use nick-names or say “Tom” 
Paine, any more than he would say “Tom” Jefierson, “Jim” Bu¬ 
chanan, “ Abe” Lincoln, &c. And, second, I have always supposed 
Bishop Coxe to be at least moderately posted in American history ; 
and it seems to me that no intelligent schoolboy would deny that 
Thomas Paine was, like his bosom friends, and co-workers, Ben¬ 
jamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, “an apostle 
of humanity and civilization ” to America. So I take it for granted 
that what is printed in your columns was not the exact language 
of the Bishop, but an erroneous report, which he will hasten to 
correct. 

However, as he seems to have said something very emphatic on 
this point, for which he “ hoped to be called to an account,” and as 
he summoned the city to rebuke those who recognize Thomas 
Paine, and to make itself “ring with denunciation,” it seemsneces- 


\ 



20 


sary for me to fortify my position with one or two historical facts. 
In the first place, in my published list of “ Eepresentatives,’’ etc., 
of American Unitarianism, I was in all honesty bound to give the 
names of all distinguished men and women in our country who had 
been known as believers in the Unity of God as opposed to His 
Trinit;^^.” The Christian world is divided into two general classes; 
the Trinitarians and th(3 Unitarians. Under the head of Trinita¬ 
rians must be placed all of whatever name (Methodists, Episcopa¬ 
lians, Eomanists, etc.,) who believe that there are “Three Persons 
in the God-head.” Under the head of Unitarians must also be 
placed all of whatever name, who believe in “ One God and only 
one—the Everlasting Father.” Now as Thomas Paine, on the first 
page of his “ Age of Eeason,” wrote his creed, which likewise he 
repeated on his death-bed, as follows: “I believe in one God and 
no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life,” I, recognizing 
this as the condensed creed of Unitarians the world over, was 
obliged in all honesty to include him in my list of distinguished 
American Unitarians. And I was the more willing and even glad 
to do this because in studying his life I found he lived up, as nearly 
as any man of his age did, to the practical part of his creed (which 
is also the practical part of the creed of all true Unitarians,) which 
he expressed as follows: “I believe in the equality of man, and I 
believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy 
and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.” This was 
his creed, frequently written and repeated, and so closely lived up 
to, that the fiercest bigots who denounced him for his denial of the 
Trinity and of the supernaturalism of the Bible, (with the exception 
of his habit of temperate wine-drinking and snufi-taking) could 
find, or at least could no fault in his moral or humane char¬ 

acter. So much as an answer to the good Bishop’s exclamation of 
horror at seeing the name of Thomas Paine enrolled with those of 
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Charles Sumner and others, on 
the list of Unitarian Eepresentatives. 

In the second place, I caniiot believe that the Bishop is so ignorant 
of the American History of a century ago, as to have actually 
denied—in the hearing of intelligent school boys (any one of 
whom, if properly educated, ought to have been able to confute 


21 


such a denial)—that Thomas Paine was worthy to he called an 
apostle of humanity and civilization.” His “ Common Sense,” and 
his “ Rights of Manf to say nothing of his numerous other publi¬ 
cations, did more to secure American Independence than all the 
other, writings of the Ee volution ary epoch combined, “ They were 
reprinted in every press in America, until thousands of copies were 
in circulation; they were read by every officer and soldier in the 
army who could read, and those who could not listened with eyes 
brim-full of wonder and of tears.” George Washington wrote: “ A 
few more such flaming arguments, added to the sound doctrine 
and unanswerable reasoning, will not leave many at a loss on the 
propriety of separation.” The Pennsylvania Journal said : ‘‘ The 
author of ^ Common Sense’’ ought to have statue of gold.” Paine 
became at once “ the darling of the Independence party, and happy 
the table or tent which could, in those days, boast his company.” 
And not only in America was his great wisdom and humanity 
recognized, but his works were translated into French and Ger¬ 
man ; when he visited Paris, eulogized by Dr. Franlciin, he was 
feasted and flattered to his heart’s content.” He was “ the most 
famous man in England,” and the Liberals there sang to the 
music of God save the King,”— 

“ God save great Thomas Paine, 

His Rights of Man proclaim 
From pole to pole.” 

And when again he traveled in France he was everywhere received 
with frantic cries of Yive Thomas Paine!” In America such 
men as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas JefiTerson and John Adams, 
Were his bosom companions and friends. He was every where recog¬ 
nized as one of the truest and most influential patriots of the Revo¬ 
lution, and had he died before he wrote ^^The Age of Reason ” (^. e.') 
before he began to be persecuted as a heretic ” and an infidel ” 
in his theology, as one of his historians truly says: ‘‘Not another 
name would have stood higher on the roll of national helpers and 
deliverers than his ; not Lafayette’s, nor Stuben’s, nor DeKalb’s, 
nor Greene’s, nor Adams’, nor Washington’s; he would have had 
more honor than he actually deserved; now he has so much less. 
And why? Because he wrote ‘ The Age of Reason’” —in other 


22 


words because be"denied and confuted the dogmas of Trinity and 
of a supernatural Bible! So much (as briefly as I can state it) in 
reply to the Bishop’s denial that Thomas Paine was worthy to be 
called an Apostle of humanity and civilization. The Apostle of 
American Liberty ” was the title by which he was everywhere 
known throughout the revolutionary epoch. 

Permit me to add one word in further explanation of Thomas 
Paine as a Unitarian. According to the division of the Christian 
world into the two general classes or bodies (to which I have re¬ 
ferred) viz: Trinitarians and Unitarians, Bishop Coxe, if making 
out a list of distinguished Trinitarians, would be obliged, in all 
honesty and honor, to include the names of Henry Ward Beecher 
and Pope Pius IX.; yet no intelligent person would suppose by 
their inclusion he meant to indicate that they are his kind of Trini¬ 
tarians in all respects; he would only mean to say that they agree 
with him on the one main point of belief in the Trinity. 

So likewise, because I included Thomas Paine in my list of dis¬ 
tinguished Unitarians, no intelligent person ought to have supposed 
that I meant to say that he was my kind of Unitarian in all re¬ 
spects ; I only meant to say that he agreed with me on the one main 
point of belief in the essential undivided and indivisible unity of 
God. This was all that was necessary in order to entitle him to a 
place in the list of “distinguished Unitarians.” Whether or not 
he was a Unitarian Christian or a Unitarian, is as foreign 

from the point under discussion, as it would be for Bishop Coxe 
to question the Trinitarianism of Pope Pius IX., simply because he 
does not consider him, with reference to other doctrines, a true 
Christian in his belief; as Bishop Coxe must recognize Pope Pius 
IX. as a “Trinitarian” whether he likes to do so or not, so exactly 
must I recognize Thomas Paine as a “ Unitarian ” whether I like 
to do so or not. 

Very truly, I am yours. 

Minister of the Unitarian Church of Buffalo. 


THOMAS PAINE. 


SECOND LETTEE IN EEPLY TO BISHOP COXE. 

Editor Buffalo Commercial Advertiser: 

In order that the writer of the Letter “No. I” on Thomas 
Paine may be assisted to gather up his threads before proceeding 
to write “ No. II,” I hasten to condense a few thoughts which 
come to me from reading what has thus far been said. 

A word more to commence with, as to the use of “ nick-names,” 
in which the writer seems to persist. “ Ben Johnson,” and the others 
referred to, were convivial characters who gave to themselves the 
sobriquet of “ Ben,” &c., but Thomas Paine was a dignified char¬ 
acter who never so designated himself, and began to be so- 
called only in derision by Tories and Trinitarians, who were his 
bitter enemies, and wished, by this cheap and vulgar method, 
to bring him into disrepute. Hence, to continue this disrespectful 
nick-narne in public writings or speech, I claim is ungentlemanly; 
I, for instance, should not think of writing or speaking about 
“ Oleve” Ooxe, and if I should do it, I would justly be denounced 
for my vulgarity; is it less nngentlemanly for the Bishop to per¬ 
sist in writing and speaking about “ Tom ” Paine ? 

But to proceed to the letter. There is really nothing in it wor¬ 
thy of an answer, as it is made up of partisan opinions, and stale 
rumors (which have no historic authenticity), together with the quo¬ 
tation of a couple of low doggerels, interspersed with a little pious 
talk and sundry bitter epithets such as “ofiensive and blasphemous 
Deists.” Only one short quotation from any respectable source 
appears in the whole letter; this is Mr. Adams’ reference to Thomas 
Paine as a “ blasphemer and libeler ; ” but this harsh language of 



24 


those harsh times was nothing more on the part of Mr. Adams 
towards his former friend Thomas Paine, than were the almost as 
severe terms used in recent times by Horace Greeley towards his 
former friend Abraham Lincoln, or those used by Charles Sumner 
towards his former friend President Grant. The simple fact was, 
Thomas Paine lost patience with what he considered the time¬ 
serving and cowardly measures of Mr. Adams and Washington, 
and severely criticised them for it—just as Greeley criticised Lin¬ 
coln, and Sumner, Grant; Adams in response answered 
bitterly, in the harsh phrases and epithets of the times. So much 
for the only historic quotation in the letter. 

Before proceeding to notice the personal “ opinions and tradi¬ 
tions” with which the rest of the letter is filled, I wish to protest, 
here at the beginning, against the scandalous falsehood contained 
in the following statement: ‘MIe was always vulgar and repulsive 
in his habits and character.” Considering the inclusion of the 
word always,” I do not speak too strongly when I say that this is a 
palyable falsehood; and also an outrageous slander, not only upon 
Thomas Paine, but also upon the many noble men and women who 
were his life-long friends and intimate associates. To say that 
the bosom friend of Benjamin Franklin, introduced and com¬ 
mended by him to the family of his son-in-law in Philadelphia; 
the great friend of Lafayette; the guest of Washington at Eocky 
Hill; of Jefferson at Monticello; of Monroe for eighteen months 
in Paris; and of many others who were the most refined and no¬ 
ble men and women of the age—to say that the warm friend and 
w^elcome guest of such persons “ was always vulgar and repulsive in 
his habits and character” is too palpable and outrageous a false¬ 
hood to be deserving a moment’s toleration. The historical fact is 
that down to about his sixty-fifth year (when he began to loose 
his mental and bodily powers, and fell, as we say, into “ second 
childhood,”) he was, “a man quiet and unobtrusive in his bearing, 
pleasant in face, neat in dress, easy in his manners;” and one who 
“nourished his health and prolonged his days by temperance.” 
By repeating the above libelous tradition, I claim the Bishop has 
insulted some of the best men and women of the Eevolutionary 
Epoch, and owes a speedy apology to American History. 


25 


% 


Open to the same condemnation is the analagous assertion that 
Thomas Paine’s “ life and conduct conflicted with the morality of 
the Bible,” and that hence, the terms, “ Patriot and Philanthropist,” 
(on the authority of Mr. Webster,) should be denied him. We 
might exclaim, what about Mr. Webster’s “life and conduct?” 
But this is foreign. The question we do ask is. What does the 
Bishop mean by the “morality” of the Bible ? Does he refer to the 
drunkeness of Noah, the unnatural crimes of Lot, the audulteries 
of Abraham, the lust and murder of David, the libertinisms and 
obscenities of Solomon, the cruelties and barbarisms of which the 
Old Testament is full—(such as repeatedly massacring thousands 
of innocent men and boys, “ripping up” their women, ravishing 
their daughters and “dashing out the brains” of their little ones) 
all of which, on the part of this “ chosen people,” is represented as 
winked' at and often as even directly commanded by God ? If this 
is what the Bishop means by the “morality of the Bible, as a rev¬ 
elation from God ” then we grant that Thomas Paine’s life and 
conduct undoubtedly conflicted with it. 

But if the Bishop means that morality of the Bible which says, 
“ What doth God require of thee but to deal justly, love mercy and 
walk humbly.” “ Blessed are the pure in heart.” “ Pure religion 
and undefiled before God and man, is to visit the fatherless and 
widows, and keep unspotted from the world,” then we emphatically 
deny that Thomas Paine’s life and conduct conflicted with the 
morality of the Bible; and this “ denial ” we have already proved 
to be the truth. 

As to Thomas Paine “joining the French Kevolution ” this so 
far from being a reproach is a glory, for he was a lover of Freedom, 
and hater of Tyrants always and everywhere; and freedom in 
France was as dear to him as freedom in America. But that he 
ever “ assailed the spirit of the American Eevolution ” (except 
when he found it too cowardly and conservative) “ forfeited the 
respect of all discerning patriots,” “ was recognized as a renegade 
and soon sunk into contempt,” is another series of slanderous false¬ 
hoods, which all contemporaneous history and records on the Re¬ 
publican side unanimously confute. 

As to the “ Quakers refusing him burial ” they would, probably 


26 


¥ 


# 


have done the same to the good Bishop, had he died about then— 
certainly they would have done so to good Dr. Channing or good 
Bishop Kyan. 

To the charge that no respectable person did him honor at his 
death,” there are two answers. One is, that the same might be 
said of him whom we now call Lord and Master.” The other is, 
that Thomas Paine outlived his distinguished friends among his 
cotemporaries, so that none were left to do him honor. “ That no 
one mourned him ” is another slander, for we have the facts, that 
in the sad years of his broken old age, little children loved hinir 
and the poor and unfortunate, for whom he always had smiles and 
kind words.” The traditional doggerel of the mythical poor ne¬ 
gro ” who is imagined to have broken out with a sort of inspira¬ 
tion ” of indecent ribaldry and falsehood over Thomas Paine’s 
grave, is too vulgar to be worthy of attention. That the ashes* of 
Thomas Paine ‘^were last heard of knocking about in an English 
Custom House,” if it were true would be no more humiliating than 
is the fact that the bones of a certain English martyr, whose name 
is sacred to all Protestant Trinitarians, were dng up years after 
burial, burned, and the ashes scattered, with curses and reproaches, 
to the four winds. And as to Byron’s verse, which the writer de¬ 
bases himself by quoting, it is only a popular versification of the 
conduct of the English Monarchists, who burned in eflBgy the great 
“ American Eevolutionist,” in every town, while all anti-Monarch- 
ists sang 

“ God save great Thomas Paine.” 

Indeed of Byron (as of the writer of this slanderous letter) we 
may ask. What did he know of Thomas Paine, except from the 
falsehoods and myths of Tories and Trinitarians? All liberal 
authorities, both political and theological, present him to the world 
as a man whom all should delight to honor. To the question : “ Is 
America accustomed to giving such treatment to her worthies ?” 
We answer it is not political but theological America ; not Eepub- 
licanism but Trinitarianism that from the first has sought to 

* If the Bishop will trouble himself to look in the American Cyclopedia (old edition), he 
will find not only a long and splendid eulogy of Thomas Paine, but also some later news as to 
what has become of that “ vile consignment his ashes. 


27 


cover Thomas Paine’s name and fame with oblivion. The same 
theological bigotry and fanaticism which burned, hung, whipped, 
persecuted, Quakers and other morally and patriotically in¬ 
nocent “Dissenters;” which cursed Roger Williams and drove 
him from state to state; which long anthematized Baptists and 
Methodists as “ Heretics”—that same ''theological bigotry and 
fanaticism which has been guilty of these, and a thousand 
similar outrages, refused Thomas Paine a burial place, sealed 
the lips of euology after his death, and for seventy-five years 
covered his memory with slander, falsehood, and reproach. 

James Monroe, (who in Paris, entertained the author of The Age 
of Reaso7im his own family for eighteen months,) rises up j§,gainst 
this outrage of historic justice and Christian charity to condemn 
it, in the following words : “ The crime of ingratitude I trust, will 
never stain the American character.” To the worth and welfare of 
Thomas Paine, America can never be indifferent. It is just this 
“ crime” which, (through the influence of priest-craft and bigotry,) 
has, for seventy-five years, “ stained the American character.” 

That Thomas Paine “scoffed at the Bible and Christianity,” is 
false. The obscenities, cruelties, immoralities, witch-crafts, juggler¬ 
ies, absurd science and false authorships of the Old Testament, as 
also the apocryphal stories, myths, and superstitious conceptions of 
the New Testament, these, together with what he considered the 
“blasphemous doctrines” of modern Trinitarianism, he combated 
and confuted with all the weapons both of ridicule and reason at 
his command. But Jesus he eulogized, and all the moral and ration¬ 
ally religious teachings of the Bible and of Christianty he esteemed 
and revered, in proof whereof, I could quote pages had I time 
and space. 

As to the statement that “he declared Christianity false and the 
Bible a fiction,” it is true that once or twice he breaks out in his 
writings with such ejaculations, just as the Psalmist in his writ¬ 
ings once ejaculated, “I said in my haste all men are liars,” but 
that they were mere ejaculations, made in the haste and impatience 
of the moment, is demonstrated by the fact that he never elaborated 
them, and especially, that all his theological writings are 
vehement and honest attempts to strip off from the Bible and 


28 


Christianity what he devoutly believed to be, their errors and 
superstitions. 

The Age of Reason has its defects; * but it certainly has proved 
itself not ‘^weak and ineffectual.” To the statements that it “has 
repeatedly demolished,” ^we reply that it contains truths which, 
however repeatedly “crushed to the earth, will rise again.” 
Such truths, for instance, as the Unity of God, the everlasting 
Brotherhood of all mankind, the Bible a natural book. Salvation 
not by blood but by character, &c.t 

To the sarcasm about “professed Christians who recognize 
Thomas Paine as a co-religionist,” we answer, we are happy to 
acknowledge that there are some “professed Christians” who are 
not ashamed to say with their Master—“Whoever doeth the will of 
my Father, the same is my brother, &c.;” and as for classing him 
with Unitarians, we answer, all who profess and call themselves 
believers in and worshippers of one God (as opposed to the 
“^^Trinity”) are Unitarians, and in all honor and honesty, must be clas¬ 
sified as such. Thomas Paine and Dr. Channing are indeed the two 
extremes of Unitarianism, but after all are no more so than for 
instance, Henry Ward Beecher and Pope Pius the IX. are the two 
extremes of Trinitarianism. 

With reference to the statement, made in the opening of the let¬ 
ter, that no man should be recognized “ as a philanthropist and 
patriot ” whose views conflict with the Bible as a revelation from 
God, I ask, Who then are the patriots and philanthropists? Cer¬ 
tainly not Adams, nor Jefferson, nor Franklin, nor Lincoln, nor 
Greeley, nor Sumner, nor Starr King, nor Peter Cooper, nor a score 
of others whose names with these, have thus far shone the bright¬ 
est in American History ! For none of these believed in the Bible as 
a supernatural book,” nor were any of them blind or dumb to its 
errors, any more than was Thomas Paine. Must we, then, proceed 
to dethrone these National Divinities whom all men now delight to 
honor? If so, will the Bishop please nominate their successors? 
Meanwhile, I invite the author of the proposed Letter, “ No. II,” 

*It has been reported about the city that The Age of Reason, is not a fit book for ladies to 
read, and I am frequently asked if it is so. I answer The Age of Reason is a much less objec¬ 
tionable book/or anybody to read than is the Old Testament, for it quotes orily to condemn, 
what in the Old Testament is often santloned and commanded. 

t A distinguished authority in 1809, said ; “Paine’s religious opinions are those of three- 
fourths of the men of letters of the last age, and of neaiuy all of those of the present.” The 
same is true now. 


29 


to give some better authority than his own imagination, or popu¬ 
lar tradition, for the following statements which he has made: 

1st. That Thomas Paine’s principles tend to social anarchy.” 

2d. That “ his life and conduct conflicted with the morality of 
the Bible.” 

3d. That he was “an apostate from the principles of Washing¬ 
ton.” 

4th. That “ he was always vulgar and repulsive in his habits 
and character.” 

5th. That “ he Tvas recognized ” (by any but Tories and Trinitar¬ 
ians) “ as a renegade, and soon sank into contempt.” 

6th. Tnat his ashes devoutly gathered up by William Cobbett, 
and carried back to England, constituted “ a vile consignment.” 

All of the above accusations, I (as a careful student of Thomas 
Paine’s life and writings and also of cotemporary history) pronounce 
false and slanderous; and I will not cease to pronounce them as such, 
until they can be fully substantiated and confirmed by unbiased tes¬ 
timonies and authentic records from, the Letters, Literature, and Po¬ 
litical Proceedings of the epoch in which he lived. 

Of course the Bishop being,an ardent believer in the “Trinity” 
and its kindred doctrines, very naturally considers Thomas Paine 
or any one else who vigorously conlutes these doctrines “ offensive 
and blasphemous,” so I am not surprised at his use of these epithets. 
At the same time Thomas Paine had just as good a right to call 
Trinitarians “ offensive and blasphemous,” and in so doing, he cer¬ 
tainly no more deserved to be characterized as “ vindictive and vul¬ 
gar,” than does the Bishop himself, who uses the same terms. 
A Unitarian (if he chooses to be so ungentlemanly) has as good a 
right to call Trinitarians “infidels, atheists, blasphemers,” as they 
have to call him by these terms. And this is all that the charge of 
“vindictiveness and vulgarity,” as applied to Thomas Paine, 
amounts to. 

The writer assails Thomas Paine as a political “ apostate,” and 
as one who “forfeited the respect” of his fellow patriots. An 
apostate from what ? Only from Tyranny and Monarchical oppres¬ 
sion ! for to his last breath he was a zealous advocate of “lawful 
and orderly Kepublicanism.” And how did he “ forfeit respect,” 


/ 


30 


when Congress, by request of Washington, (several other legislative 
bodies following the example) voted him an honorary appropria¬ 
tion; James Monroe {after he wrote his Age of Reason) gave him 
a home in his own family for eighteen months; Jefferson, on his 
return to America, invited him to Monticello. At Washington 
he was received cordially and “ New York and Philadelphia hon¬ 
ored him with public dinners.” It was only his Trinitarian and tory 
enemies who hated him, and said that “ he and Jefferson should 
dangle from the same gallows.” 

In concluding, I am pleased to quote the words of Judge Clin¬ 
ton, in his recent Fourth of July oration delivered in our city. 
His eulogy corresponds exactly with my investigations, with the 
exception of its theological or dogmatic inferences, viz.: that 
Thomas Paine was “not a Christian ;” that he “assaulted Chris¬ 
tianity; ” and that “his Age of Reason is almost forgotten,” all 
of which statements are not matters of fact, but matters of opinion. 
With this exception, the following eloquent words are words of 
historic truth : 


“ Thomas Paine, an Englishman, gave us wondrous aid and com¬ 
fort with his pen, and the value of his services was publicly ac¬ 
knowledged by Congress, and by all our foremost statesmen, and 
after the vindication of our Independence, New Jersey and New 
York hastened to testify their sense of them by gifts of land and 
money. (It seems surprising that a man of his ability and worth 
was not a Christian. He, in common with many of our most venerat¬ 
ed statesmen, was tinged with the falsely so-called philosophy then 
so widely prevalent. His ^ Age of Reason’ is almost forgotten.* 
His assaults upon Christianity were weak and ineffective.) Mere 
justice to so efficient a’defender of the rights of man requires us 
to remember that his creed, though too contracted, was noble—it 
might have been the creed of Socrates or Plato: ‘ I believe in one 
God and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I be¬ 
lieve in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties 
consist in doing justice, loving mercy and endeavoring to make 
our fellow creatures happy.’ ” 

Truly yours, M. K. S. 


Intelligent and responsible gentleman writes to me witli reference to this assertion, 
I have made diligent inqnirv at all the bookstores in New York, Boston, and other cities 
wh^e his works are sold, and find out that there never was so large a demand for * Tice Aoe 
of Reason' as during the present year.” 


THOMAS PAINE. 


THIRD LETTER IN REPLY TO BISHOP COXE. 

Editor Buffalo Commercial Advertiser : 

The many readers of your paper will naturally expect to see a 
reply to the letter of last Saturday upon Thomas Paine; but as I 
do not deem newspaper controversies on theological issues profit¬ 
able to either side, and inasmuch as (with a single exception) the 
whole tone and spirit of the letter was theological, I therefore for¬ 
bear the attempt to answer it in fidl through the columns of your 
paper. In such a discussion personal opinions and popular rumors 
are of no account, much less the use of bitter epithets. In the 
midst of the narrowness, bigotry and persecutions of seventy-five 
years ago the use of such epithets as “ offensive and blasphemous 
Deists,” and such blackguardisms as those of Byron and of the 
Mythical Negro might have been excusable; but for an intelligent 
^ and reputable citizen of Buffalo to quote and use them in the year 
1876 is not excusable even on the ground that no other weapons were 
at his command. 

It has been said that the “unpardonable sin ” consists in seeking to 
defame the character of another simply because he holds and teaches 
“heretical” opinions. If this be true, the writer of “LettersNos. 
I and II ” on Thomas Paine, has committed a sin which, if per¬ 
sisted in, must be pronounced “unpardonable.” The whole letter, 
from beginning to end, is an evident attempt to blacken Thomas 
Paine’s character so completely as not to leave one white spot for 
admiration ; and all this with both historic facts and^common sense 
to contradict and confute it. 

A distinguished lawyer once said, “'the saddest;[feature of our 
profession is that we are expected, in defending our clients, to 
blacken the character of their opponents, and try to prove them 
rogues whether they are so or not.” Politicians flight say the 
same of their profession; and if we should try to make out a case 
against any of our distinguished men, from George Washington 



32 


down to Abraham Lincoln, simply by quoting the words of politi¬ 
cal and legal antagonists, there would not be wanting pages of 
blackguardism, ridicule and slander. This is bad enough for lawyers 
and politicians, but when ministers of religion stoop to adopt the 
same method, it is lamentable indeed. What some enraged politi¬ 
cal enemy said, or what Webster or Emmet, in certain famous law¬ 
suits, were expected and paid to say, is of no historic account, and 
only tricksters among historians, and theologians who are bound 

to defame the character of an opponent and prove him a rogue 
whether he be one or not,” would for a moment think of making 
quotations from such sources. 

As to the charge of “drunkenness,” so commonly made against 
Thomas Paine, a distinguished biographer says: “I have waded 
through all the letters and records of the times, and have nowhere 
found any support for the charge.” It is most certainly nothing 
but a slanderous rumor put in circulation by his political and the¬ 
ological enemies, and has no basis of fact other than that in the 
last few years of his life, as an invalid thoroughly broken both in 
mind and body, he constantly needed and used stimulants. If 
this be a damning sin, then thousands of respectable invalids and 
aged persons, including many respectable Doctors of Divinity of 
the present, as of all preceding times, are equally guilty. 

As to his life-long custom of moderate drinking^ as we all know, 
this was the custom of everybody in those times, ministers included. 
And, to make a single comparison, judging from the “liquor bills” 
of George Washington (which are still preserved) had Thomas 
Paine consumed so much in a year as the “ Father of our 
Country ” did in a single month, he would probably have been 
bankrupt at the end of a second, certainly at the end of a third 
year. 

These slanderous imputations upon the character of Thomas 
Paine, are all that f think if needful or wise'to controvert through 
the columns of a daily newspaper. There are some other points in 
the Letters which I have already considered, and u\y full reply YfiW 
soon appear in my “Pamphlet on Thomas Paine” now in process 
of publication. 


/ 


Truly yours. 


M. K. S. 



« i'BSp 

i • V ■'jS 

:0 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 019 308 972 0 

77; ' ‘ . ' k- . 

' • V 7 ' > 'j‘ •■'.v , .* 

■ V ^. '.,^,1 • 7 '- "'. V ' ■ ^ 
















